Updating large recordsets takes long time in ms access database

23 May

Basically, my question is this: is this code the appropriate way to handle updates to normalized [email protected] Williams, I'm trying to find out whether "box ID" is found in the table; get Key returns 0 if the value is not found.It's a trade-off and you have to decide where you want your pain.There are lots of other things to do, and one thing to examine early on in troubleshooting performance problems is the Recordsource of each main form.Darwin Dating is a dating website for beautiful people.This content is outdated and is no longer being maintained.Just to clarify it's not actually my database and I didn't choose access, I'm just helping a company out by developing some of their already implemented access database.Anyway, on some of their forms the forms open and run extremely slowly for no apparent reason.

updating large recordsets takes long time in ms access database-29updating large recordsets takes long time in ms access database-78updating large recordsets takes long time in ms access database-87updating large recordsets takes long time in ms access database-17

The problem with that is that you're trading one major slowdown (loading all that stuff when the form is first opened) for a number of much smaller slowdowns (loading each subform/rowsource as its needed).

I want to be able to notify the user if there was an attempt to update a record that doesn't could use the Records Affected property following the Execute to see whether any records were updated: this would save you work if most of your updates are successful.

As for your main question, I'm not sure I understand the issue: is it just performance you're worried about ?

Execute ustr, db Fail On Error End Sub get Key("db Object","table","field","value") returns a unique value's primary key.

I'm concerned that if, e.g., I have to update 100,000 records, I'll have to loop this procedure's queries through every record, which means I'll be running 100,000 select queries against a table with 100,000 records--and this makes me worried about performance issues, even though everything's indexed.